ios 12.1.2 update wreaking havoc?

[*Hemidactylus*]

Maybe a good thing I decided there were no benefits warranting me updating
my phone:

https://mashable.com/article/ios-update-cellular-data-outages/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2018/12/22/apple-ios-12-1-2-problem-iphone-xs-max-xr-mobile-data-cellular-4g-cannot-load-internet/

“As more and more iPhone owners blindly upgrade to iOS 12.1.2 reports are
now flooding in from around the world that it cuts off mobile data
services.”

Yipes!

[nospam]

In article <BP2dnUb4t6OGuL3B...@giganews.com>,
*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

> https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2018/12/22/apple-ios-12-1-2-problem-i
> phone-xs-max-xr-mobile-data-cellular-4g-cannot-load-internet/
>
> ³As more and more iPhone owners blindly upgrade to iOS 12.1.2 reports are

> now flooding in from around the world that it cuts off mobile data

> services.²

there are actually *two* 12.1.2 updates, the second having replaced the
first, something he 'forgot' to mention in his usual fake news tirade.

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 19:22:15 -0500, nospam wrote:

> there are actually *two* 12.1.2 updates, the second having replaced the
> first, something he 'forgot' to mention in his usual fake news tirade.

You're well aware that I take the words of the VP of software engineering
at Apple that the diarrhea of iOS is scripted by MARKETING - and not by
engineering - such that - IMHO - only a *fool* would "blindly update" to
_any_ iOS release, let alone one that, at least in part, is likely designed
to secretly _remove_ functionality that is in dispute in Germany & China.

I'm not saying I know for a fact WHAT functionality was removed, but we
_know_ that Apple's solution to the infringement claims is to remove "some"
functionality.

Also, we _know_ that Apple is in a big hurry, which they said so themselves
in their own legal filings based on the costs involved of NOT selling the
affected iPhones in Germany & China (and who knows where else).

Given that a *normal* iOS release, by the very words of Craig Federighi of
Apple, are a diarrhea (my characterization - but that's what he said in
effect) caused by MARKETING that he wants to put a stop to - you can rest
assured that a *rushed* release is an enema on top of diarrhea.

In short, IMHO, any logical adult would *stay away* from the current spate
of releases that is the latest saga of the diarrhea that is iOS releases.
o There are no known benefits to USA customers that I know of
o The release appears to have been rushed even more than normal
o The releases appear to be aimed at _removing_ functionality
o Even a normal release is a diarrhea - this is an enema on top of that!

[nospam]

In article <pvpn0d$bj$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

>
> > there are actually *two* 12.1.2 updates, the second having replaced the
> > first, something he 'forgot' to mention in his usual fake news tirade.
>
> You're well aware that I take the words of the VP of software engineering

actually, you don't, unless it suits your agenda.

nevertheless, he (or someone more directly involved with the update)
decided to release a second version of 12.1.2 to fix bugs in the first
version.

[Alan Browne]

On 2018-12-24 05:06, nospam wrote:
> actually, you don't, unless it suits your agenda.
>
> nevertheless, he (or someone more directly involved with the update)
> decided to release a second version of 12.1.2 to fix bugs in the first
> version.

Apple would do themselves a favour and name the 2nd v. 12.1.3 to avoid
all doubt.

--
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants. Proof that we
need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
- unknown protester

[nospam]

In article <OLidnRygKqeJRb3B...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

>
> Apple would do themselves a favour and name the 2nd v. 12.1.3 to avoid
> all doubt.

it has a different build number, however, those with the first version
don't get the second, so a second number would confuse people even
more.

[Alan Browne]

On 2018-12-24 10:10, nospam wrote:
> it has a different build number, however, those with the first version
> don't get the second, so a second number would confuse people even
> more.

How does that make sense? If you have the first version that causes
issues you can't get the second version (of the same "version")?

[Chris in Makati]

On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 10:43:11 -0500, Alan Browne
<bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

>On 2018-12-24 10:10, nospam wrote:
>> it has a different build number, however, those with the first version
>> don't get the second, so a second number would confuse people even
>> more.
>
>How does that make sense? If you have the first version that causes
>issues you can't get the second version (of the same "version")?

I downloaded and installed 12.1.2 using just my iPhone and it all
seemed to go ok.

The following day when I connected the phone to the computer iTunes
said the phone needed upgrading to 12.1.2. It didn't make much sense
at the time, but I let iTunes go ahead and install it.anyway.

I'm not sure if I would ever have got the second release of 12.1.2 if
iTunes had never seen the phone.

[nospam]

In article <dPqdncgjd_0SY73B...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

> > it has a different build number, however, those with the first version
> > don't get the second, so a second number would confuse people even
> > more.
>
> How does that make sense? If you have the first version that causes
> issues you can't get the second version (of the same "version")?

that depends whether the first version is actually causing major
issues, and if so, how widespread it actually is. if it was causing
problems, it would have been pulled, and that has not happened.

for whatever reason, the differences are not sufficient for what apple
considers to justify a new version number. it could be a connectivity
bug or it could be something unrelated.

it's also not the first time apple has done that, nor have other
companies, including microsoft.

[nospam]

In article <jqv12epgpniguebd3...@4ax.com>, Chris in

Makati <ma...@nospam.com> wrote:

> I downloaded and installed 12.1.2 using just my iPhone and it all
> seemed to go ok.
>
> The following day when I connected the phone to the computer iTunes
> said the phone needed upgrading to 12.1.2. It didn't make much sense
> at the time, but I let iTunes go ahead and install it.anyway.
>
> I'm not sure if I would ever have got the second release of 12.1.2 if
> iTunes had never seen the phone.

what build number do you have now? and do you know what the one you
first downloaded was?

[Alan Browne]

On 2018-12-24 10:58, nospam wrote:
> In article <dPqdncgjd_0SY73B...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
>>> it has a different build number, however, those with the first version
>>> don't get the second, so a second number would confuse people even
>>> more.
>>
>> How does that make sense? If you have the first version that causes
>> issues you can't get the second version (of the same "version")?
>
> that depends whether the first version is actually causing major
> issues, and if so, how widespread it actually is. if it was causing
> problems, it would have been pulled, and that has not happened.
>
> for whatever reason, the differences are not sufficient for what apple
> considers to justify a new version number. it could be a connectivity
> bug or it could be something unrelated.

If they're playing cute games with different builds under the same
version, then someone is authorizing it in order to short circuit the
quality process. Shoddy.

>
> it's also not the first time apple has done that, nor have other
> companies, including microsoft.

Bad practice is bad practice. Irrelevant what any other company does.

[Alan Browne]

You probably did not need any update - except in the case where (as
nospam points out) they've made two different releases under the same
version number - which is just plain poor practice.

[nospam]

In article <DOCdnX3Bi6lPmLzB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

> >>> it has a different build number, however, those with the first version
> >>> don't get the second, so a second number would confuse people even
> >>> more.
> >>
> >> How does that make sense? If you have the first version that causes
> >> issues you can't get the second version (of the same "version")?
> >
> > that depends whether the first version is actually causing major
> > issues, and if so, how widespread it actually is. if it was causing
> > problems, it would have been pulled, and that has not happened.
> >
> > for whatever reason, the differences are not sufficient for what apple
> > considers to justify a new version number. it could be a connectivity
> > bug or it could be something unrelated.
>
> If they're playing cute games with different builds under the same
> version, then someone is authorizing it in order to short circuit the
> quality process. Shoddy.

they're not playing cute games. the build number is 3 higher, which is
obviously a very minor change and associated testing.

> > it's also not the first time apple has done that, nor have other
> > companies, including microsoft.
>
> Bad practice is bad practice. Irrelevant what any other company does.

it's not bad practice and if other companies do it, apple cannot be
singled out for it.

[Alan Browne]

On 2018-12-24 11:26, nospam wrote:
> In article <DOCdnX3Bi6lPmLzB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> it has a different build number, however, those with the first version
>>>>> don't get the second, so a second number would confuse people even
>>>>> more.
>>>>
>>>> How does that make sense? If you have the first version that causes
>>>> issues you can't get the second version (of the same "version")?
>>>
>>> that depends whether the first version is actually causing major
>>> issues, and if so, how widespread it actually is. if it was causing
>>> problems, it would have been pulled, and that has not happened.
>>>
>>> for whatever reason, the differences are not sufficient for what apple
>>> considers to justify a new version number. it could be a connectivity
>>> bug or it could be something unrelated.
>>
>> If they're playing cute games with different builds under the same
>> version, then someone is authorizing it in order to short circuit the
>> quality process. Shoddy.
>
> they're not playing cute games. the build number is 3 higher, which is
> obviously a very minor change and associated testing.

In a quality process a build is frozen to the release version.

If you break that, you're willing to break many things. Does not bode
well. And if SQE let it pass (or are bypassed), then SQE do not control
what they ought to be controlling.

>>> it's also not the first time apple has done that, nor have other
>>> companies, including microsoft.
>>
>> Bad practice is bad practice. Irrelevant what any other company does.
>
> it's not bad practice and if other companies do it, apple cannot be
> singled out for it.

It's shoddy practice regardless of who does it - Apple included.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 11:46:07 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

> It's shoddy practice regardless of who does it - Apple included.

This is a rare occasion I must agree with Alan Browne.

Nospam has few responses to facts, where one of his responses is:
* Android/Microsoft/Samsunt/etc. made Apple do it

I think intelligent people should keep in mind that the VP of software
engineering is on record this very year for complaining that Marketing, not
Engineering, has been driving the iOS release cycle such that Engineering
can't release the code that is to their engineering standards.

Then, I think intelligent people should keep in mind that Apple is in an
apparently Qualcomm-induced rush, to remove "stuff" that Qualcomm has been
able to convince jurisdictions around the world to "injunct".

Given that marketing-induced time-critical situation, it's no wonder that
Apple would "rush" this spate of releases without following their normal QC
procedures.

IMHO, any intelligent adult should have "pause for concern" that these
apparently rushed releases are perhaps likely more about quickly _removing_
current and predicted "injuncted functionality", than about providing the
American consumer with quality increases in functionality.

Given that premise, I posit that only a fool would download the current
spate of iOS releases in the complete absence of any known benefit and,
worse, in the known environment as described above of
* Marketing drives the release schedule - not engineering, and,
* Right now Marketing has to REMOVE stuff that affects lawsuits & sales.

[nospam]

In article <M6udnULcfLfSkLzB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

> >>> for whatever reason, the differences are not sufficient for what apple
> >>> considers to justify a new version number. it could be a connectivity
> >>> bug or it could be something unrelated.
> >>
> >> If they're playing cute games with different builds under the same
> >> version, then someone is authorizing it in order to short circuit the
> >> quality process. Shoddy.
> >
> > they're not playing cute games. the build number is 3 higher, which is
> > obviously a very minor change and associated testing.
>
> In a quality process a build is frozen to the release version.
>
> If you break that, you're willing to break many things. Does not bode
> well. And if SQE let it pass (or are bypassed), then SQE do not control
> what they ought to be controlling.

they found something that they wanted to fix before the next release
cycle. no big deal. nothing is perfect and every release has bugs.

> >>> it's also not the first time apple has done that, nor have other
> >>> companies, including microsoft.
> >>
> >> Bad practice is bad practice. Irrelevant what any other company does.
> >
> > it's not bad practice and if other companies do it, apple cannot be
> > singled out for it.
>
> It's shoddy practice regardless of who does it - Apple included.

it's not shoddy in the least.

[JF Mezei]

Does having 2 different versions of 12.1.2 explain why my iPhone (at
12.1.2) thinks it is up to date, but iTunes keeps telling me I need to
update to 12.1.2 ?

I was with @AppleSupport on Twitter yesterday and they wanted me to
reboot my computer etc. (playing naive) instead of trelling me iTunes
was proposing a refreshed versiuon of 12.1.2. (if that is the case).

[nospam]

In article <RW8UD.115583$4d4....@fx41.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Does having 2 different versions of 12.1.2 explain why my iPhone (at
> 12.1.2) thinks it is up to date, but iTunes keeps telling me I need to
> update to 12.1.2 ?

what is the build number you currently have, and are you actually
experiencing a problem?

> I was with @AppleSupport on Twitter yesterday and they wanted me to
> reboot my computer etc. (playing naive) instead of trelling me iTunes
> was proposing a refreshed versiuon of 12.1.2. (if that is the case).

don't even waste your time there.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-12-24 13:03, nospam wrote:

> what is the build number you currently have, and are you actually
> experiencing a problem?

The iPhone was updated via wi-fi and given: 12.1.2 16C101 (iPhone Xs)


iTunes only says 12.1.2 in the version it says I should upgrade to (no
build number given).

If I download (but doN't install) the proposed update from iTunes, can
I easily find what build number it would give the iPhone ?

[B...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 10:10:41 -0500, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <OLidnRygKqeJRb3B...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
><bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>

>> cemselves a favour and name the 2nd v. 12.1.3 to avoid

>> all doubt.
>
>it has a different build number, however, those with the first version
>don't get the second, so a second number would confuse people even
>more.

It was very confusing to me. As a rule I downloaded 12.1.2 a few days
after it was released and just forgot about it. I did see a notice
later that 12.1.2 was available but dismissed it since I had just
downloaded it. I have an app through AT&T that monitors my iPhone,
mainly because it notifies when a known spam or marketing call is
coming through. But it does more and kept sending me a signal that my
OS was out of date. Again I dismissed it. After several days it
was still there so I checked. But when I opened iTunes there was the
message that 12.1.2 was available. Maybe I hadn't actually downloaded
it??? So I went back to check my iPhone. Now it had the same message
so back to iTunes and downloaded it......again.

Now I see what happened, but I easily could've gone on until the next
update came out. Thankfully this one had little to do with my
iPhone X.

It would have been clearer and possibly
safer to assign a different number.

[nospam]

In article <ME9UD.136433$h57....@fx38.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> > what is the build number you currently have, and are you actually
> > experiencing a problem?
>
> The iPhone was updated via wi-fi and given: 12.1.2 16C101 (iPhone Xs)

that's the first version.

> iTunes only says 12.1.2 in the version it says I should upgrade to (no
> build number given).

it's probably going to push the second version, which is c104.

obviously, not a lot changed in 3 additional builds.

> If I download (but doN't install) the proposed update from iTunes, can
> I easily find what build number it would give the iPhone ?

probably, assuming the ipsw file is named accordingly.

[Rod Speed]

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote

Works fine for me.

[Alan Browne]

On 2018-12-24 12:42, nospam wrote:
> In article <M6udnULcfLfSkLzB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> for whatever reason, the differences are not sufficient for what apple
>>>>> considers to justify a new version number. it could be a connectivity
>>>>> bug or it could be something unrelated.
>>>>
>>>> If they're playing cute games with different builds under the same
>>>> version, then someone is authorizing it in order to short circuit the
>>>> quality process. Shoddy.
>>>
>>> they're not playing cute games. the build number is 3 higher, which is
>>> obviously a very minor change and associated testing.
>>
>> In a quality process a build is frozen to the release version.
>>
>> If you break that, you're willing to break many things. Does not bode
>> well. And if SQE let it pass (or are bypassed), then SQE do not control
>> what they ought to be controlling.
>
> they found something that they wanted to fix before the next release
> cycle. no big deal. nothing is perfect and every release has bugs.

The issue is how versions are controlled (or not, in this case),

>
>>>>> it's also not the first time apple has done that, nor have other
>>>>> companies, including microsoft.
>>>>
>>>> Bad practice is bad practice. Irrelevant what any other company does.
>>>
>>> it's not bad practice and if other companies do it, apple cannot be
>>> singled out for it.
>>
>> It's shoddy practice regardless of who does it - Apple included.
>
> it's not shoddy in the least.

Any SQEP that allows such is weak.

[Alan Browne]

Indeed.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-12-24 14:02, nospam wrote:

>> The iPhone was updated via wi-fi and given: 12.1.2 16C101 (iPhone Xs)
>
> that's the first version.

Thanks. So it explains iTunes pushing the same version (but with later
build). iTunes should be displaying the build number when it proposes a
version.

[Rod Speed]

"JF Mezei" <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote in message
news:YJgUD.72744$mm5....@fx09.iad...

I update by wifi and it will be interesting to see what happens with that.

I currently have 16C101 and the phone claims its up to date but
we normally do get updates later than you lot and the US does.

Pretty fucked if it doesn’t allow an update by wifi.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-12-24 21:53, Rod Speed wrote:

> I currently have 16C101 and the phone claims its up to date but
> we normally do get updates later than you lot and the US does.

My phone's General-> Software Update indicates I am up to date. iTunes
tells me I need to upgrade to 12.1.2

[nospam]

In article <uLCdnUzlvpUjybzB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

> >>
> >> In a quality process a build is frozen to the release version.
> >>
> >> If you break that, you're willing to break many things. Does not bode
> >> well. And if SQE let it pass (or are bypassed), then SQE do not control
> >> what they ought to be controlling.
> >
> > they found something that they wanted to fix before the next release
> > cycle. no big deal. nothing is perfect and every release has bugs.
>
> The issue is how versions are controlled (or not, in this case),

no, the issue is that they found something minor which could be pushed
out in a couple of days rather than wait for the next cycle, which is
likely to be early january.

> >>>> Bad practice is bad practice. Irrelevant what any other company does.
> >>>
> >>> it's not bad practice and if other companies do it, apple cannot be
> >>> singled out for it.
> >>
> >> It's shoddy practice regardless of who does it - Apple included.
> >
> > it's not shoddy in the least.
>
> Any SQEP that allows such is weak.

take a look at microsoft if you want weak q/a.

win10 1809 was a huge fuckup, where user's files were deleted. the bug
had been reported during testing but slipped through the cracks. it was
also a very, very sloppy bug.

[Chris in Makati]

On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 10:58:08 -0500, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

I now have 12.1.2 (16C104).

I didn't make a note of what it was after the first update.

[*Hemidactylus*]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <uLCdnUzlvpUjybzB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> In a quality process a build is frozen to the release version.
>>>>
>>>> If you break that, you're willing to break many things. Does not bode
>>>> well. And if SQE let it pass (or are bypassed), then SQE do not control
>>>> what they ought to be controlling.
>>>
>>> they found something that they wanted to fix before the next release
>>> cycle. no big deal. nothing is perfect and every release has bugs.
>>
>> The issue is how versions are controlled (or not, in this case),
>
> no, the issue is that they found something minor which could be pushed
> out in a couple of days rather than wait for the next cycle, which is
> likely to be early january.
>

Minor? Not for the people affected. If it affected me I would be pissed at
Apple and at you for minimizing the issue.

>
>>>>>> Bad practice is bad practice. Irrelevant what any other company does.
>>>>>
>>>>> it's not bad practice and if other companies do it, apple cannot be
>>>>> singled out for it.
>>>>
>>>> It's shoddy practice regardless of who does it - Apple included.
>>>
>>> it's not shoddy in the least.
>>
>> Any SQEP that allows such is weak.
>
> take a look at microsoft if you want weak q/a.
>
> win10 1809 was a huge fuckup, where user's files were deleted. the bug
> had been reported during testing but slipped through the cracks. it was
> also a very, very sloppy bug.
>

Everyone else is doing it. Responsibility diffusion mixed with corporate
PR. Retch!

[nospam]

In article <IrednY0ce5nhPL7B...@giganews.com>,

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

> >
> > no, the issue is that they found something minor which could be pushed
> > out in a couple of days rather than wait for the next cycle, which is
> > likely to be early january.
> >
> Minor? Not for the people affected. If it affected me I would be pissed at
> Apple and at you for minimizing the issue.

no, you'd be glad that they pushed out a fix in a couple of days rather
than wait a few weeks.

there are more than 1 billion active ios devices. nothing is perfect so
there will always be a small number with problems. it sucks for those
affected, but unless it's widespread, it's minor.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 24.12.18 um 01:22 schrieb nospam:
> In article <BP2dnUb4t6OGuL3B...@giganews.com>,
> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>
>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2018/12/22/apple-ios-12-1-2-problem-i
>> phone-xs-max-xr-mobile-data-cellular-4g-cannot-load-internet/
>>
>> ³As more and more iPhone owners blindly upgrade to iOS 12.1.2 reports are

>> now flooding in from around the world that it cuts off mobile data

>> services.²
>
> there are actually *two* 12.1.2 updates, the second having replaced the
> first, something he 'forgot' to mention in his usual fake news tirade.

Who is he?
The Arlen-Troll? Alias Newton?

[nospam]

In article <q009jk$i40$1...@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch>
wrote:

> >> https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2018/12/22/apple-ios-12-1-2-proble
> >> m-iphone-xs-max-xr-mobile-data-cellular-4g-cannot-load-internet/
> >>
> >> 3As more and more iPhone owners blindly upgrade to iOS 12.1.2 reports are

> >> now flooding in from around the world that it cuts off mobile data

> >> services.2

> >
> > there are actually *two* 12.1.2 updates, the second having replaced the
> > first, something he 'forgot' to mention in his usual fake news tirade.
>
> Who is he?
> The Arlen-Troll? Alias Newton?

the author of the article in forbes, known as gordon kelly. most, if
not all of his articles, are missing key details that contradict his
claims.

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 11:51:03 -0500, nospam wrote:

> the author of the article in forbes, known as gordon kelly. most, if
> not all of his articles, are missing key details that contradict his
> claims.

Cat ... Kettle ... Black.

[*Hemidactylus*]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <IrednY0ce5nhPL7B...@giganews.com>,
> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> no, the issue is that they found something minor which could be pushed
>>> out in a couple of days rather than wait for the next cycle, which is
>>> likely to be early january.
>>>
>> Minor? Not for the people affected. If it affected me I would be pissed at
>> Apple and at you for minimizing the issue.
>
> no, you'd be glad that they pushed out a fix in a couple of days rather
> than wait a few weeks.
>

So you’re thinking for others now? Projection duly noted.

>
> there are more than 1 billion active ios devices. nothing is perfect so
> there will always be a small number with problems. it sucks for those
> affected, but unless it's widespread, it's minor.
>

And to apply this fixed the phone needs to be tethered to a computer with
iTunes no?

[nospam]

In article <ysadnUzMWtaSTb7B...@giganews.com>,

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

> >>> no, the issue is that they found something minor which could be pushed
> >>> out in a couple of days rather than wait for the next cycle, which is
> >>> likely to be early january.
> >>>
> >> Minor? Not for the people affected. If it affected me I would be pissed at
> >> Apple and at you for minimizing the issue.
> >
> > no, you'd be glad that they pushed out a fix in a couple of days rather
> > than wait a few weeks.
>

> So youąre thinking for others now? Projection duly noted.

no.

> > there are more than 1 billion active ios devices. nothing is perfect so
> > there will always be a small number with problems. it sucks for those
> > affected, but unless it's widespread, it's minor.
> >
> And to apply this fixed the phone needs to be tethered to a computer with
> iTunes no?

no.

[Chris in Makati]

What does the cat do?

[Rod Speed]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:261220181051081739%nos...@nospam.invalid...

> In article <IrednY0ce5nhPL7B...@giganews.com>,
> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > no, the issue is that they found something minor which could be pushed
>> > out in a couple of days rather than wait for the next cycle, which is
>> > likely to be early january.
>> >
>> Minor? Not for the people affected. If it affected me I would be pissed
>> at
>> Apple and at you for minimizing the issue.
>
> no, you'd be glad that they pushed out a fix in a couple of days rather
> than wait a few weeks.

No reason why it cant be pushed out with a new number in a couple
of days and stupid that an automatic update wouldn't happen too.

> there are more than 1 billion active ios devices. nothing is
> perfect so there will always be a small number with problems.

Yes, but it would be much better if the
automatic update was automatic with those.

> it sucks for those affected, but unless it's widespread, it's minor.

But still much better for an automatic update to happen automatically.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 26.12.18 um 17:51 schrieb nospam:
> Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch>

>> Who is he?
>> The Arlen-Troll? Alias Newton?
>
> the author of the article in forbes, known as gordon kelly. most, if
> not all of his articles, are missing key details that contradict his
> claims.

THX.

[nospam]

In article <g8i5hb...@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed

<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> > no, the issue is that they found something minor which could be pushed
> >> > out in a couple of days rather than wait for the next cycle, which is
> >> > likely to be early january.
> >> >
> >> Minor? Not for the people affected. If it affected me I would be pissed
> >> at
> >> Apple and at you for minimizing the issue.
> >
> > no, you'd be glad that they pushed out a fix in a couple of days rather
> > than wait a few weeks.
>
> No reason why it cant be pushed out with a new number in a couple
> of days and stupid that an automatic update wouldn't happen too.

it wasn't something that justified a new version number.

microsoft does the same thing, as do other companies. there are *many*
versions of windows 10 1809, all called 1809, with different hardware
getting different variants at different times. the same happened with
1803 and earlier.

[Rod Speed]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

news:261220181530136496%nos...@nospam.invalid...

> In article <g8i5hb...@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
> <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> > no, the issue is that they found something minor which could be
>> >> > pushed
>> >> > out in a couple of days rather than wait for the next cycle, which
>> >> > is
>> >> > likely to be early january.
>> >> >
>> >> Minor? Not for the people affected. If it affected me I would be
>> >> pissed
>> >> at
>> >> Apple and at you for minimizing the issue.
>> >
>> > no, you'd be glad that they pushed out a fix in a couple of days rather
>> > than wait a few weeks.
>>
>> No reason why it cant be pushed out with a new number in a couple
>> of days and stupid that an automatic update wouldn't happen too.
>
> it wasn't something that justified a new version number.

Yes it does when not giving it a new number wont see it automatically
be updated for those who have automatic updates enabled.

> microsoft does the same thing, as do other companies. there are *many*
> versions of windows 10 1809, all called 1809, with different hardware
> getting different variants at different times. the same happened with
> 1803 and earlier.

All irrelevant to what makes sense on an iphone.

[nospam]

In article <g8i8lf...@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed

<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>
> >> No reason why it cant be pushed out with a new number in a couple
> >> of days and stupid that an automatic update wouldn't happen too.
> >
> > it wasn't something that justified a new version number.
>
> Yes it does when not giving it a new number wont see it automatically
> be updated for those who have automatic updates enabled.

apple doesn't consider it big enough to justify an auto-update for
everyone.

> > microsoft does the same thing, as do other companies. there are *many*
> > versions of windows 10 1809, all called 1809, with different hardware
> > getting different variants at different times. the same happened with
> > 1803 and earlier.
>
> All irrelevant to what makes sense on an iphone.

it's very relevant.

[Lewis]

This seems to be a pattern at Forbes. When I find myself there, by
accident of course, I close the page.


--
From deep inside the tears that I'm forced to cry From deep inside the
pain I--I chose to hide

[nospam]

In article <slrnq27ue6....@jaka.local>, Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> >> >> https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2018/12/22/apple-ios-12-1-2-pro

> >> >> ble
> >> >> m-iphone-xs-max-xr-mobile-data-cellular-4g-cannot-load-internet/
> >> >>
> >> >> 3As more and more iPhone owners blindly upgrade to iOS 12.1.2 reports
> >> >> are
> >> >> now flooding in from around the world that it cuts off mobile data
> >> >> services.2
> >> >
> >> > there are actually *two* 12.1.2 updates, the second having replaced the
> >> > first, something he 'forgot' to mention in his usual fake news tirade.
> >>
> >> Who is he?
> >> The Arlen-Troll? Alias Newton?
>
> > the author of the article in forbes, known as gordon kelly. most, if
> > not all of his articles, are missing key details that contradict his
> > claims.
>
> This seems to be a pattern at Forbes. When I find myself there, by
> accident of course, I close the page.

it ain't just forbes. bloomberg's corporate policy is fake news.

[Lewis]

I didn't understand why people were surprised at Bloomberg's utterly
bullshit story about Amazon and Apple and Super Micro. And people kept
using phrases like "a respected news organization" because I haven't
considered them respectable, reliable, or even news for going on 20
years.

Though I think Forbes is generally worse.


--
'I'm just going to kick some arse dear' 'Oh, good. Just be sure you wrap
up well, then.'

[nospam]

In article <slrnq27uuf....@jaka.local>, Lewis

<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> >> > the author of the article in forbes, known as gordon kelly. most, if
> >> > not all of his articles, are missing key details that contradict his
> >> > claims.
> >>
> >> This seems to be a pattern at Forbes. When I find myself there, by
> >> accident of course, I close the page.
>
> > it ain't just forbes. bloomberg's corporate policy is fake news.
>
> I didn't understand why people were surprised at Bloomberg's utterly
> bullshit story about Amazon and Apple and Super Micro. And people kept
> using phrases like "a respected news organization" because I haven't
> considered them respectable, reliable, or even news for going on 20
> years.

those familiar with bloomberg aren't surprised, but the masses fall for
it, which affects the stock price, with insiders profiting by billions
of dollars, then they pay off the right people to look the other way.

> Though I think Forbes is generally worse.

i don't think forbes offers bonuses for fake news.

[Rod Speed]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

news:261220181616091843%nos...@nospam.invalid...

> In article <g8i8lf...@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
> <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >> No reason why it cant be pushed out with a new number in a couple
>> >> of days and stupid that an automatic update wouldn't happen too.
>> >
>> > it wasn't something that justified a new version number.
>>
>> Yes it does when not giving it a new number wont see it automatically
>> be updated for those who have automatic updates enabled.
>
> apple doesn't consider it big enough to justify an auto-update for
> everyone.

More fool apple with a fault like that.

>> > microsoft does the same thing, as do other companies. there are *many*
>> > versions of windows 10 1809, all called 1809, with different hardware
>> > getting different variants at different times. the same happened with
>> > 1803 and earlier.
>>
>> All irrelevant to what makes sense on an iphone.
>
> it's very relevant.

Pigs arse it is.

[JF Mezei]

On 2018-12-26 15:30, nospam wrote:

> it wasn't something that justified a new version number.

iTunes sees difference between 12.1.2 an 12.1.2 due to different build
nukbers (hidden to users).

the iPhone does not see a difference between 12.1.2 and 12.1.2
(different builds)


If Apple wishes have ability to update the same version to fix minor
glitches, so be it, but iTunes and iPhones should behave the same way
when presented with such updates.

Either ignore the minor update because that version was installed
already, or present it as new version of 12.1.2 (aka: show the
different build numbers)

[*Hemidactylus*]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <ysadnUzMWtaSTb7B...@giganews.com>,
> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>> no, the issue is that they found something minor which could be pushed
>>>>> out in a couple of days rather than wait for the next cycle, which is
>>>>> likely to be early january.
>>>>>
>>>> Minor? Not for the people affected. If it affected me I would be pissed at
>>>> Apple and at you for minimizing the issue.
>>>
>>> no, you'd be glad that they pushed out a fix in a couple of days rather
>>> than wait a few weeks.
>>

>> So you¹re thinking for others now? Projection duly noted.
>
> no.
>
You just told me what my reaction would be as if it would be impossible to
think otherwise. It’s right up there. Are you denying what you just said?

>
>>> there are more than 1 billion active ios devices. nothing is perfect so
>>> there will always be a small number with problems. it sucks for those
>>> affected, but unless it's widespread, it's minor.
>>>
>> And to apply this fixed the phone needs to be tethered to a computer with
>> iTunes no?
>
> no.
>

So if I screwed up and updated to the 12.1.2 that borks the cellular
connection I could download the fixed build of 12.1.2 OTA without the need
to tether the phone to a computer with iTunes? Is that what you’re saying?

[*Hemidactylus*]

So the poor soul who gets screwed by an iOS update and lacks a computer
with iTunes is shit out of luck?

Score one for not jumping the update bandwagon and watching the early
adopter canaries in the coal mine drop dead first til Apple remedies the
situation with an arcane frickin build number. Corporations and their
precious information asymmetry and bottom line.

Cue protective hornet’s nest response with illusory stings. As the Agassi
commercial went “Image is everything”.

[nospam]

In article <LfudnbR2ZrumornB...@giganews.com>,

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

> >>>>> no, the issue is that they found something minor which could be pushed
> >>>>> out in a couple of days rather than wait for the next cycle, which is
> >>>>> likely to be early january.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Minor? Not for the people affected. If it affected me I would be pissed
> >>>> at Apple and at you for minimizing the issue.
> >>>
> >>> no, you'd be glad that they pushed out a fix in a couple of days rather
> >>> than wait a few weeks.
> >>

> >> So you1re thinking for others now? Projection duly noted.

> >
> > no.
> >
> You just told me what my reaction would be as if it would be impossible to

> think otherwise. Itąs right up there. Are you denying what you just said?

not at all.

what you're saying is that you'd be pissed that apple released a bug
fix within a couple of days rather than wait for the next release
cycle.

> >>> there are more than 1 billion active ios devices. nothing is perfect so
> >>> there will always be a small number with problems. it sucks for those
> >>> affected, but unless it's widespread, it's minor.
> >>>
> >> And to apply this fixed the phone needs to be tethered to a computer with
> >> iTunes no?
> >
> > no.
> >
> So if I screwed up and updated to the 12.1.2 that borks the cellular
> connection I could download the fixed build of 12.1.2 OTA without the need

> to tether the phone to a computer with iTunes? Is that what youąre saying?

you're assuming that the supposed borking is due to 12.1.12 and not
something else.

people are quick to blame updates without any idea what the problem
actually is. it could be the cellular carrier and might have occurred
*without* any update. or it could be a temporary glitch.

most people who have updated have *not* seen any problem whatsoever,
which means the update is not borked.

nothing is perfect, and out of 1 billion active devices, there will
always be a small number of users with some sort of problem. even with
a very low 0.01% failure rate, which is *extremely* low (i.e, 99.99%
have no issue), there would be 100,000 people, many of whom are going
to take to the forums. people like to complain.

[Rod Speed]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

news:261220182218125238%nos...@nospam.invalid...

> In article <LfudnbR2ZrumornB...@giganews.com>,
> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >>>>> no, the issue is that they found something minor which could be
>> >>>>> pushed
>> >>>>> out in a couple of days rather than wait for the next cycle, which
>> >>>>> is
>> >>>>> likely to be early january.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> Minor? Not for the people affected. If it affected me I would be
>> >>>> pissed
>> >>>> at Apple and at you for minimizing the issue.
>> >>>
>> >>> no, you'd be glad that they pushed out a fix in a couple of days
>> >>> rather
>> >>> than wait a few weeks.
>> >>
>> >> So you1re thinking for others now? Projection duly noted.
>> >
>> > no.
>> >
>> You just told me what my reaction would be as if it would be impossible
>> to

>> think otherwise. Itıs right up there. Are you denying what you just said?

>
> not at all.
>
> what you're saying is that you'd be pissed that apple released a bug
> fix within a couple of days rather than wait for the next release cycle.

Nope, he is actually saying that it is stupid to not use a new number
within a couple of days so that those who update using wifi or have
automatic updates enabled don't get the fucking update or even
be notified that there is one available using itunes.

>> >>> there are more than 1 billion active ios devices. nothing is perfect
>> >>> so
>> >>> there will always be a small number with problems. it sucks for those
>> >>> affected, but unless it's widespread, it's minor.
>> >>>
>> >> And to apply this fixed the phone needs to be tethered to a computer
>> >> with
>> >> iTunes no?
>> >
>> > no.
>> >
>> So if I screwed up and updated to the 12.1.2 that borks the cellular
>> connection I could download the fixed build of 12.1.2 OTA without the
>> need

>> to tether the phone to a computer with iTunes? Is that what youıre

>> saying?
>
> you're assuming that the supposed borking is due to 12.1.12 and not
> something else.
>
> people are quick to blame updates without any idea what the problem
> actually is. it could be the cellular carrier and might have occurred
> *without* any update. or it could be a temporary glitch.
>
> most people who have updated have *not* seen any problem whatsoever,
> which means the update is not borked.
>
> nothing is perfect, and out of 1 billion active devices, there will
> always be a small number of users with some sort of problem. even with
> a very low 0.01% failure rate, which is *extremely* low (i.e, 99.99%
> have no issue), there would be 100,000 people, many of whom are going
> to take to the forums. people like to complain.

All irrelevant to the stupidity of not giving it a new number
so that the update system works fine getting that build out.

[Lewis]

In message <_Y-dnZxeKbKn3LnB...@giganews.com> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> On 2018-12-26 15:30, nospam wrote:
>>
>>> it wasn't something that justified a new version number.
>>
>> iTunes sees difference between 12.1.2 an 12.1.2 due to different build
>> nukbers (hidden to users).
>>
>> the iPhone does not see a difference between 12.1.2 and 12.1.2
>> (different builds)
>>
>>
>> If Apple wishes have ability to update the same version to fix minor
>> glitches, so be it, but iTunes and iPhones should behave the same way
>> when presented with such updates.
>>
>> Either ignore the minor update because that version was installed
>> already, or present it as new version of 12.1.2 (aka: show the
>> different build numbers)
>>
> So the poor soul who gets screwed by an iOS update and lacks a computer
> with iTunes is shit out of luck?

JF is lying again.


--
"If you can't do something smart, do something right."

[nospam]

In article <g8j2km...@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed

<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > what you're saying is that you'd be pissed that apple released a bug
> > fix within a couple of days rather than wait for the next release cycle.
>
> Nope, he is actually saying that it is stupid to not use a new number
> within a couple of days so that those who update using wifi or have
> automatic updates enabled don't get the fucking update or even
> be notified that there is one available using itunes.

the change was minor enough to not justify a new version number,
something which happens with many, many companies, particularly
microsoft.

[Tim J]

"Lewis" <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message
news:slrnq29s8v....@jaka.local...

Nope, I have the same result myself. I never use iTunes to
update, always do it over wifi, in my case do it manually
when I see a new one is available, usually in here.

Got the first build, which works fine. My phone keeps saying its up
to date even tho the later build has been available for a while now.

[Rod Speed]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

news:271220181041260011%nos...@nospam.invalid...

> In article <g8j2km...@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
> <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > what you're saying is that you'd be pissed that apple released a bug
>> > fix within a couple of days rather than wait for the next release
>> > cycle.
>>
>> Nope, he is actually saying that it is stupid to not use a new number
>> within a couple of days so that those who update using wifi or have
>> automatic updates enabled don't get the fucking update or even
>> be notified that there is one available using itunes.
>
> the change was minor enough to not justify a new version number,

But doing it that way means that its never seen by those
who update using wifi and is never automatically updated.

> something which happens with many, many companies, particularly
> microsoft.

Irrelevant what others do. It's a fucked approach when you never
see that there is a later build available if you don't use iTunes.

[nospam]

In article <g8km70...@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed

<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > the change was minor enough to not justify a new version number,
>
> But doing it that way means that its never seen by those
> who update using wifi and is never automatically updated.

that's the intent.

> > something which happens with many, many companies, particularly
> > microsoft.
>
> Irrelevant what others do. It's a fucked approach when you never
> see that there is a later build available if you don't use iTunes.

it's very relevant, and very common.

[Rod Speed]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

news:271220181647119439%nos...@nospam.invalid...

> In article <g8km70...@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
> <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > the change was minor enough to not justify a new version number,
>>
>> But doing it that way means that its never seen by those
>> who update using wifi and is never automatically updated.
>
> that's the intent.

Completely stupid intent and I don't believe you anyway
given that iTunes does tell you that an update is available.

>> > something which happens with many, many companies, particularly
>> > microsoft.
>>
>> Irrelevant what others do. It's a fucked approach when you never
>> see that there is a later build available if you don't use iTunes.
>
> it's very relevant,

Wrong, as always.

> and very common.

Irrelevant.